Worthington City Schools Board of Education v. Franklin County Board of Revision
129 Ohio St. 3d 3
Ohio2011Background
- Appeal from a BTA decision in a real property valuation case; Worthington I remanded for proper recency analysis, and the BTA again adopted the May 2003 sale price after remand.
- Weber Sisters purchased the property in May 2003 for $4,175,000, with most space leased; several large tenants were expected but did not take possession.
- The BOR initially valued at $2,680,000 (auditor’s value) and rejected the sale price based on owners’ alleged lack of market familiarity and subsequent vacancy losses.
- On remand, the BTA found no market change between May 2003 and the 2004/2005 tax-lien dates and again adopted the sale price as value; Weber Sisters challenged the BTA’s recency determination.
- The court ultimately affirmed the BTA, rejecting Weber Sisters’ arguments that the BTA ignored Worthington I and misallocated burden of proof; a dissent by Pfeifer criticized the result.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was recency properly determined based on the entire record? | Weber Sisters contends BTA ignored Worthington I and misapplied recency. | Worthington City Schools argues no market change was shown; sale remained recent. | Yes; recency properly concluded (no reversal on recency). |
| Did Weber Sisters prove market change negating recency? | Weber Sisters presented tenant losses and sale challenges as market change. | Record failed to show market change; ownership/tenancy issues not tied to market shift. | No; insufficient evidence of market change to rebut recency. |
| Who bears the burden of proof on recency on remand? | Weber Sisters bears burden to show sale was not recent. | School board bears burden to rebut Weber Sisters’ evidence. | Weber Sisters failed to meet burden; BTA properly found sale recent. |
| Is use of sale price as value appropriate when recency and arm's-length criteria are satisfied? | Sale price should not be used due to market/other factors. | Uniform rule supports use of sale price when criteria satisfied. | Yes; sale price used as value. (Affirmed BTA; observed lack of change.) |
Key Cases Cited
- EOP-BP Tower, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 106 Ohio St.3d 1 (2005) (unreasonable or unlawful valuation standard; deference to BTA findings)
- Olentangy Local Schools Bd. of Edn. v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Revision, 125 Ohio St.3d 103 (2010) (deferential abuse-of-discretion review of BTA credibility and evidence)
- Satullo v. Wilkins, 111 Ohio St.3d 399 (2006) (deferential standard for witness credibility and weighing evidence)
- Cummins Property Servs., L.L.C. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 117 Ohio St.3d 516 (2008) (recency/arm's-length criteria in value assessment; market factors)
- Woda Ivy Glen Ltd. Partnership v. Fayette Cty. Bd. of Revision, 121 Ohio St.3d 175 (2009) (uniform rule: value property by actual sale price when criteria satisfied)